The Planning Committee of Hinckley and Bosworth Council met on Tuesday 28 July 2026, determining two significant planning applications. The committee refused an outline application for 75 dwellings on land north of Hunts Lane, Desford, citing concerns over encroachment into the countryside and inadequate infrastructure contributions. However, a full application for an industrial/logistics unit at the EMEB Sports and Social Club on Nutts Lane, Hinckley, was deferred to allow the applicant to reconsider the scale and design in light of residential amenity concerns.

Land North of Hunts Lane, Desford

The committee refused an outline planning application for up to 75 dwellings on land north of Hunts Lane, Desford. The refusal was based on two primary reasons:

• Encroachment into the Countryside: Members agreed that the development would result in unrestricted encroachment of urbanising built form into the designated open countryside, causing significant and permanent harm to the rural character of the site and the surrounding area. This was considered contrary to policies within the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (SADMP), the Desford Neighbourhood Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The committee concluded that this harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the potential benefits of the scheme.
• Inadequate Infrastructure Contributions: The refusal also cited the applicant's failure to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure necessary planning obligations. These obligations were intended to provide for affordable housing, public open space, and contributions towards highways, health, education, waste services, and libraries. The committee deemed these contributions essential for mitigating the development's impact on community services and facilities, and their absence made the application contrary to Policy DM3 of the SADMP.

During the debate, Councillor MJ Crooks, Chair of the committee, expressed strong objections, highlighting the loss of agricultural land and the impact on views. Councillor R Allen seconded the motion to refuse, emphasizing the conflict with the Desford Neighbourhood Plan and the strain on local infrastructure, particularly the B582/Main Street/High Street mini-roundabout. Councillor Boothby echoed these sentiments, stressing the need for greater protection of rural areas.

Objectors, including Gavin, representing Desford residents, and Dr. Pearce, highlighted the significant and permanent harm to the countryside and the loss of productive agricultural land. Alistair Thorne, the agent for the applicant, Peverell Homes, argued for the application, stating that officers had recommended approval and that the development would deliver significant benefits, including market and affordable housing, at a time when the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Councillor Webber-Jones, a ward councillor, spoke against the application, stating it bypassed democratic processes and would further strain village facilities. Councillor Winner, Chair of Desford Parish Council, also objected, pointing to the conflict with multiple planning policies and the village already absorbing a significant number of new homes.

EMEB Sports and Social Club, Nutts Lane, Hinckley

The committee deferred a full planning application for an industrial/logistics unit at the EMEB Sports and Social Club on Nutts Lane, Hinckley. While officers recommended approval, citing economic benefits and compliance with employment land policies, members expressed significant concerns about the impact on residential amenity.

The primary concern was the scale and height of the proposed building, which would reach 16.5 metres. Councillor A Pendlebury, the ward councillor, argued that the building's height, nearly double that of the adjacent houses on Nutts Lane, would be wholly out of keeping with the character of Nuts Lane and would have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties. Councillor Lynch moved for deferral, stating the building was too high and it's too close and that developers should be given a chance to rethink it. Councillor Bray seconded the motion, expressing disappointment that the playing fields had been lost for a solar array and now faced further development with significant amenity impacts.

Concerns were also raised about the potential for 24-hour operation, noise, and light pollution, despite the noise assessment suggesting impacts would be less than the Low Observed Effect Level (LOAEL). Members also questioned the job creation figures, with Councillor Scott suggesting that modern, automated warehouses would not create the claimed 253 full-time equivalent jobs.

Hannah Swainston, the agent for the applicant, Hinckley Investment LLP, highlighted the site's decade-long disuse for sporting purposes and the applicant's commitment to a high-quality, sustainable development. She noted that the applicant had engaged with local residents and offered meetings, but none had taken up the offer.

The deferral was agreed to allow the applicant to reconsider the design and scale of the building to address the concerns regarding residential amenity.

Appeals Progress

Edward Stacey, Assistant Director of Planning and Regeneration, provided an update on appeals progress. A hearing date was set for October for land off Baston Road, Newbold Verdon, and comments were open to the public until 17 August. Decisions were reported on two appeals: Regent Court, Regent Street, Hinckley, where a change of use to a residential flat was dismissed, and 11 Dane Hill, Bratby, where a proposed self-built bungalow was allowed.

The meeting concluded at 7:42 pm.